Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Flood Rates Spur Action

Local delegates move when Congress won’t

January 2, 2014

WHEELING — As a bill in the House of Representatives that would delay massive flood insurance premium increases for thousands of local home and business owners languishes in committee, some members......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(15)

RockEReputation

Jan-02-14 9:19 AM

While its tsntamount to fairness to subsidize waterfront vacation homes in this government insurance program.

..and at the same time tsntamount to socialism to subsidize a citizen making $20k for health insurance..

..why is the goverment in the flood insurance business anyway?

..oh yeah, to protect homeowners in flood prone areas because the private insurance industry won't touch them.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 10:29 AM

NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) was started in 1968 by the Johnson Administration.

"The act was motivated by a long history of property damage and loss of life due to flooding. The legislation was finally promulgated because of the recent flood loss sustained in Florida and Louisiana following the destruction caused by the Hurricane Betsy flood surge in 1965."

The goberment has received enough in premium payments to pay for all the claims, except that the goberment spends the 3.4 billion dollars per year on "other" needed "things!"

So Ms. Storch should have "dumped" her house on another buyer if she had known the premium was going to increase....FUNNY STUFF!

Should I be required to "help" her pay for subsidized flood insurance because of a choice SHE made?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Erikka

Jan-02-14 10:43 AM

Dear dying - Um, no, and I never asked you to help me. Thank you. I pay my own way. However, my house - which is only affected by less than 2 feet, is never going to see irreparable damage. I take care of my property too. My conversation with Ian was a long one, and I would not expect him to write everything we discussed, afterall, the article is not about me. Had I known the crap that dealing with 2 feet in a flood zone was going to yield, I would not have purchased in that area. I live in Woodsdale, and if I flood, we all have issues.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kimberly2

Jan-02-14 10:51 AM

I do agree that homes and businesses in flood prone areas should have to pay higher premiums but within reason. We rec'd a bill for our storage buildings which are nothing more than a metal building with no plumbing, heat or electric. Nothing that would need replaced. Our bill for 2014 was $24,500 and this is not a joke. NO ONE can afford premiums like this. In my opinion our property is now worth nothing. No one can buy it and afford the flood insurance.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 12:04 PM

Erika, So who exactly do you think is subsidizing your goberment flood insurance? If Woodsdale floods we are all in trouble! Did Woodsdale flood in 2004?

"You pay your own way!" Lloyds of London (only other option I'm aware of) will insure your home against flooding, give them a call and see if you would like to "pay your own way!" NFIP is subsidized by the good US tax payers, Lloyds of London is NOT!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Erikka

Jan-02-14 12:20 PM

dying - First of all, I am a "good US taxpayer" too. Second, MY HOUSE DID NOT SEE A DROP OF WATER IN 2004 or any other time that I am aware. My elevation is 12 feet higher in elevation than a neighboring home on Bethany Pike that was recently removed from the flood map. Third,if flood waters get high enough to flood my home, there are a lot of other places that are going to take on water prior to my home taking on water. I am aware of my elevation, and damage would be done to many other places first. There are several areas like this in our area when this was not even the problem areas. The subsidy has helped places that are consistently damaged by their proximity to water and their low elevation. They should never have been allowed to build or rebuild. There is much collateral damage to this legislation. As Kimberly stated, it is ludicrous to have to pay $24,500 to insure metal buildings with no plumbing or electric.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 12:58 PM

Try the floodsmart dot gov site and you will find that kimberly2 is likely getting ripped-off!

Much of the information in the article is incorrect (floodsmart dot gov is a good source), I will not point fingers!

You can have a survey of your home done and file a LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) and be taken out of the flood insurance requirement. If your elevation is truly above the BFE (Base flood elevation).

Wheeling has received 2,800 claims on the 1,245 policies in force. 2+ claims per policy, insurance can not survive those kinds of odds! Goberment spent all the money and now the "risk" holders will pay...

Maybe you could have the State of WV start it's own flood insurance pool. Just be aware that south of Charleston experiences many a flood!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Erikka

Jan-02-14 1:40 PM

dying - as we have now hijacked this comment thread, I might as well reply to you here (and it is not like I have other options to have this discussion). I had Stegman and Schellhase do an elevation study a few years ago. That is how I know my elevation. The left corner of my house is less than 2 feet below the BFE. That is the problem. That is what they use to warrant requiring me to have flood insurance. We are the first people out of the original family to buy this house. Had I known the issues that I would be facing, I would have purchased elsewhere. I am not asking anyone to help me or subsidize my payments, but that has been the only option. If the open insurance market won't insure these properties, they should not be allowed to be sold, mortgaged, etc. The federal government has no business in insurance but they have been there for years, and now are hurting properties that have no comparison to the genesis of their real issue.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardwhee

Jan-02-14 2:19 PM

As usual, The gov wants the haves to pay for the have-nots. How much will be subsidized by the gov??

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 2:21 PM

2 feet below BFE will be expensive in the near future. The mortgage holder will "force place" a policy if you don't keep yours current. If it expires, the increases will happen all at once and not incrementally.

Biggert-Watters Flood ACT (Maxine Watters is an ultra-liberal) and claims to advocate for the "little" guy. What she thought would happen is that the wealthy beach-home owners would be paying for much of the increase. She really has/had no clue how the program works. The majority of flood insurance is on owner-occupied homes that house those Maxine Watters "little" guys!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Erikka

Jan-02-14 2:36 PM

dying - Exactly - and my two feet below is only one corner section of my house. I am going to pay through the nose for less than two feet in one small portion of the overall square footage, and you are correct. I will be paying immediately because I refinanced last year. The new lender required flood insurance to be escrowed, which it was not before. For some reason, it then took them over 60 days to pay it, even though it was deducted at closing. So, I am considered to have a lapsed policy and have gotten notice Liberty Mututal will not re-write the policy without a host of items. That was my point to Ian all along. Watters was going after the beach homes and encompassed a bunch of regular, working class Woodsdale homes like mine. Instead of making those properties obsolete by allowing the free market to prevail, Government got involved(long ago) & subsidized flood premiums to the point people did not even realize. Now there will be a mess.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Erikka

Jan-02-14 2:38 PM

and take it one step further... the Ohio County Assessor is going to want property taxes on my home that basically is not sellable. If it cannot be sold, it has no worth. What is the property tax collectable on a piece of property with no worth? How is the Assessor going to collect property taxes in one level only for home owners to be told their homes have no opportunity to be sold? This will create issues for FEMA funding and also for Political Subdivisions. It will just be a matter of time.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-02-14 3:45 PM

FrakingReputation maybe private insurance doesn't touch bad investments.

While Insurance companies are smart enough to cancel multiple DUI's, Governments, in order to buy more votes on election day, should subsidize drunkass RockeDrivers???

NAAAAAH!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 4:19 PM

When the rates get to the liking of private insurance we will have more choices. I's sure the assessor will be fair about the value!

All I can say is that every program that the government gets into eventially costs more than intended! Less goberment intrusion is the clear answer......

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-02-14 4:21 PM

When you are sitting in Charleston and listening to your fellow representatives just remember that federal money comes with strings and regulations that someone in Wyoming (or any different state) thinks is a good idea!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: